Global_Environmental_Research_Vol.25No1&2
66/124

(2016 a). Two questions were used: “How important is waste separation/purchasing refill products to preserving the environment and conserving our natural resources?” (A1before) and “How important is waste separation/ purchasing environmental management?” (A2before). The respondents were requested to indicate their degree of agreement on a six-point scale ranging from ‘strongly agree’ to ‘strongly disagree.’ Then, they were asked about their current waste separation or refill product purchase practices. The practices were measured on a six-point scale ranging from ‘always’ to ‘never.’ In addition, the respondents of the W-group were asked to select waste types they separated from among the choices provided, which included wet waste, newspapers and paper, aluminum cans, glass, milk cartons, plastic bottles, lamps, batteries and spray bottles, and other. Respondents of the R-group were asked to select categories of refill products they purchased from among the choices provided, which included body and hand soap, dishwashing liquid, liquid detergent, household cleaners, car/air freshener, instant drink powder and other. 60 Fig. 4 Product information about refill product categories presented to Group RA. refill After responding to products the above questions, to the S. PHUPHISITH et al. thought,” and “I’ve never thought about this before.” The WL respondents were asked whether they had been aware of ( i.e., had knowledge of ) the mechanism of environmental-load reduction by waste separation (KWL). The answer choices were: I was aware of it ‘very much,’ ‘much,’ ‘fairly much,’ ‘slightly,’ ‘seldom’ and ‘never.’ The RL respondents were asked whether they had been aware of GHG reduction resulting from use of refill products instead of single-use products (KRL) with the same answer choices as provided to the WL group. The RA respondents were asked to select the product categories they had never been aware of before from the choices provided (KRA). One more choice was also prepared for the respondents who were aware of all the categories: “I am aware of all the categories listed here.” The respondents were then asked about their attitudes and intentions to perform the target behaviors. Question A1 was asked again after information provision (A1after), and an additional question about attitude was also asked: “Do your daily activities have impacts on environmental problems due to resource use, product manufacturing, (A3after). The product respondents were requested to indicate their agreement using a six-point scale ranging from ‘strongly agree’ to ‘strongly disagree.’ For intentions, the respondents were asked how much they would try to perform or keep performing the target behaviors in the following one month, using a six-point scale ranging from ‘absolutely’ to ‘never.’ No information was provided to the control groups (WC and RC); therefore, they were promptly asked question A3after followed by the above-described question on their intention to perform the target behavior. The questionnaire was initially developed in English and then translated into Thai. To avoid misunderstanding of the questions and to check for any difficulties in answering, the Thai version was preliminarily tested with 10 Thai members of the University of Tokyo (nine faculty member) during 19–23 students and one September 2016, and was revised reflecting their comments. The questionnaire was distributed through a web-based survey by Intage Inc. (Japan) during 12–24 October 2016, and there was a total of 2,446 respondents. All respondents were Thai citizens living in Bangkok and its vicinity, aged 20–59 years. the respondents were presented one type of information according to their assigned group as described in Table 1. Then the respondents were asked about their perceptions of the comprehensibility and usefulness of the information provided, using a six-point scale ranging from ‘strongly agree’ to ‘strongly disagree.’ They were also asked about their prior knowledge concerning information provided. The WA respondents were asked whether they had ever thought about the differences in practices between Bangkok, Tokyo and Seoul (KWA). The answer choices were: “The size of differences is ‘larger,’ ‘a bit larger,’ ‘similar,’ ‘a bit smaller,’ ‘smaller’ than/to what I One month later, another survey was conducted to follow up on the respondents’ actual practices. The follow-up questionnaire was sent to all respondents who had participated in the previous survey. The questionnaire consisted of two parts: (1) target behavior practice rates and (2) reasons for not performing the behavior. The W-group were asked whether transportation or disposal?” they had performed waste separation in the previous one month or not, using a six-point scale ranging from ‘always’ to 2.3.2 Questionnaire Survey for Follow-up Practice

元のページ  ../index.html#66

このブックを見る